Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 35

20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

19:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Davidwr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

 

Hello Davidwr. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me change the title of my article? Don't know how

Hey, was hoping you could help change the title to your proposed one, which you are probably correct to say works better (though perhaps someone can later think of a better one.) I have no idea how this is done and can't figure out how. I've otherwise found most functions easy to find, but I'm stumped on how to do a title change. Human, All Too Human (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Human, All Too Human: Read WP:MOVE to find out how to move pages. As a new editor, you may not be able to move for a few more days. If that is the case, put a note at WP:Requested moves, but don't do it as long as the "speedy deletion" template is still up (the "speedy deletion" request should be acted upon within a day or so, probably sooner since this is a biography of a living person). Also, read WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, and WP:NOTNEWS so you have a better understanding of why some editors may think the page you created is either walking a tightrope with respect to these rules or has actually crossed the line. Personally, I think that until major news outlets start reporting this as "confirmed" news rather than "unconfirmed news," it is irresponsible for major news outlets to report it and irresponsible for Wikipedia to have it in an article in a way that is suggesting that these reports are accurate (they may be, or they may not be, we should know within a few days if not hours). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Following up to myself: @Human, All Too Human: The other editor who is paying attention to the article is Flat Out. He may be able to help you move the page if you cannot. I will be logging out for the day and may or may not be back tomorrow. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  Resolved
@Human, All Too Human: I have moved the page to Donald Trump Russia tape. This does not change the content of the page but it slightly reduces the change that the page will be deleted as an "attack" page. Ultimately, that decision is will be in the hands of the reviewing administrator. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But Wiki has articles like Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Hillary Clinton's health, Barack the Magic Negro, Whitewater controversy, and too many others to count which have been more or less been disproven. Nearly every hoax that comes out of Alex Jones crazy mouth seems to have its own article. This is FAR more notable than any of these: it is something that 2 presidents have been briefed on, making it a historical, notable event. As such, even if the allegations turn out to be false, precedent suggests the article would still be notable, based merely on the coverage it's already garnered. Probably I won't convince you, but that's my view here: there's already more than enough to establish notability, whether or not the claims are further substantiated.Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of stuff that needs to be fixed up, trimmed, improved, or outright deleted. The fact that it is there does not mean that those examples should be followed. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As for the other guy, I doubt he's going to help me. He yelled at me just for unblanking the page even though I left his tag. He also seems to keep spuriously saying the page is an "attack page" (serving "NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO DISPARAGE"? I mean come on.)Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The "no other purpose than to disparage" is boilerplate text in Template:db-g10, and it is arguably true in this case, at least until reliable news sources start claiming that they have confirmed what they are reporting. It is also arguably false in this case, given the high profile and high public interest. I would not want to be the administrator making the call on this page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I did ask him though, so I will see what he says. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've done it. Thanks! I think I'm done editing this article for the near future, so feel free to improve it if you like, or perhaps we ought let it simmer for a few days. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Human, All Too Human was blocked as a sockpuppet and the article deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Several edits by a block-evading non-logged-in editor removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)